History has just been made in the Republic of the Philippines.
Senate impeachment court presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile has just cast his vote of “GUILTY” at 5:55 p.m. of May 29, 2012.
Twenty (20) senator-judges have voted to convict the highest magistrate of the land – Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.
My source got it right – that 20 senators would convict. See –
My observations on the impeachment trial pre-climax
Now the hard work begins.
And I am expecting Filipinos the world over, including those in the country, to help out.
Corona’s bitter legacy to all Filipino public servants from hereon: “Learn from me.”
Raissa
P.S. Alan says –
“Chief Justice, you’re hereby demoted to Renato.”
***
Alan also suggested –
What if somebody nominates Senator-Judge Miriam to become the Honorable Chief Justice of the Scream Court?
***
I just got a text from a cab driver named Geoffrey Olmoges soon after the conviction came through. He said:
Hay salamt! convicted na din.
Grbe mam tlagang huminto ako sa pagpapasada dhl,nakatotok ako mula umpisa
I texted him back:
Mamasada ka na. :)
Geoffrey texted back:
Dbaling short sa boundary at least guilty.
[Geoffrey was the cab driver I interviewed after the horrific car accident of ex-senator Rene Saguisag and his wife Dulce who was killed then. ]
***
Senator Bong Revilla is consistent in his political switching. In 2001, he left the Erap camp and publicly called for his ninong to step down from the presidency. Today he voted to convict Corona, knowing that would deprive his party chief, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, of her only legal shield.
Perhaps he deserves the pinwheel award –
baycas says
Remember Corona’s bank waiver? He revoked it
BY AYEE MACARAIG
Posted on 08/30/2012 10:19 AM | Updated 08/30/2012 1:55 PM
http://www.rappler.com/nation/11443-henares-corona-revoked-waiver
Mel says
Mel says
ADDENDUM
Mel says
duquemarino says
@CPMers
The cat (or cats) is (are) out of the bag! The JBC has shortlisted eight nominees for the Chief Justice.
“PNoy to choose from 8 nominees as next Chief Justice; De Lima not on shortlist”
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/269501/news/nation/pnoy-to-choose-from-8-nominees-as-next-chief-justice-de-lima-not-on-shortlist
Out of the 20 chief justice aspirants, the JBC voted to include acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion, Teresita De Castro, and Lourdes Sereno on the shortlist.
Also included were Solicitor-General Francis Jardeleza, Ateneo De Manila University Law Dean Cesar Villanueva, and former Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who is facing a disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and is widely seen as the palace choice for the post, was not included on the shortlist.
duquemarino says
@CPMers
“PNoy to choose from 8 nominees as next Chief Justice; De Lima not on shortlist”
Rappler Updated 08/13/2012 2:22 PM
Out of the 20 chief justice aspirants, the JBC voted to include acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion, Teresita De Castro, and Lourdes Sereno on the shortlist.
Also included were Solicitor-General Francis Jardeleza, Ateneo De Manila University Law Dean Cesar Villanueva, and former Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.
arbee says
Hi Raissa,
I love reading the Supreme Court decisions even before the impeachment trial of ex-CJ Corona. This morning while scouring the SC’s decisions in April, I came upon this:
G.R. No. 189434 & G.R. No. 189505. April 25, 2012
Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. Vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government/Imelda Romualdez-Marcos Vs. Republic of the Philippines
[the link:]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/189434.htm
This is a very informative piece and, well, it may partly or fully explain the younger Marcos’s vote to acquit the ex-CJ.
All I can say is: hmmmmmmmm!
jjvillamor says
To excerpt or highlight that April 2012 decision certified by CORONA on APRIL 25, 2012:
Promulgated:
April 25, 2012
Thus, in determining whether the presumption of ill-gotten wealth should be applied, the relevant period is incumbency, or the period in which the public officer served in that position. The amount of the public officer’s salary and lawful income is compared against any property or amount acquired for that same period XXX (The Philippine government) was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses “were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials.”[
XXX
This means petitioners are unable to account for or explain more than two-thirds of the total net worth of the Marcos spouses from 1965 to 1984.
Thus, for the final time, we soundly reiterate that the Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials. XXX Petitioners herein thus failed to overturn this presumption when they merely presented vague denials and pleaded “lack of sufficient knowledge” in their Answer.
XXX
With the myriad of properties and interconnected accounts used to hide these assets that are in danger of dissipation, it would be highly unreasonable to require the government to ascertain their exact locations and recover them simultaneously
XXX
the lawful income of the Marcoses is only USD 304,372.43 XXX The entirety of the lawful income of the Marcoses represents only 9% of the entire assets of Arelma, which petitioners remain unable to explain.
In their Answer to the Petition for Forfeiture, petitioners employ the same tactic, consisting of general denials based on a purported lack of knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the Arelma assets.
XXX
In the case at bar, petitioners give the same stock answer to the effect that the Marcoses did not engage in any illegal activities, and that all their properties were lawfully acquired. They fail to state with particularity the ultimate facts surrounding the alleged lawfulness of the mode of acquiring the funds in Arelma (which totaled USD 3,369,975.00 back in 1983), considering that the entirety of their lawful income amounted only to USD 304,372.43, or only 9% of the entire Arelma fund.
XXX
Petitioners cannot escape the fact that there is manifest disparity between the amount of the Arelma funds and the lawful income of the Marcoses as shown in the ITRs filed by spouses Marcos.
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
jjvillamor says
Based on that recent SC decision certified by Corona, shouldn’t Corona explain the great disparity between his assets and lawful income? Based on the disparity and Coron’a failure to explain his wealth, shouldn’t they be presummed ill-gotton?
What I am afraid of is that criminal cases will be dragged on and on into oblivion beyond the next President’s term
ron says
@arbee #397, Kindly elaborate why in your opinion this court decision party or fully explain the younger Marcos’s vote to acquit the ex-CJ. My simple take on his vote is that the coconut does fall away from the tree, that is why I like to know what you and other CPMers think.
jjvillamor says
The way I understand arbee #397, it is not the decision. If Cj is acquitted, petitioner Bong bong’s believe or hope that it would strengthen their own argument(in an appeal) using CJ’s impeachment argument or defense as basis.
chijap says
abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/06/08/12/reconciliation-basas-no-gimmick-corona-wife-says
Natawa ako dun sa comment ni Roy. Yung punishment daw wag isagad.
Anak ng… so kung nagnakaw ka, sa ok na yung mapagalitan?
Roy should be disbarred for his attics and wisdom of the law. Scriptwriter sya, di sya abogado. People like him are the reason why the profession is assumed evil and criminal and dishonest at the start.
Clear yung constitution. Article 6, Section 3.7:
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”
concerned citizen says
Just flabbergasted by this article:
Bongbong Marcos: Won’t Bow, Be Bullied, or Be Bought!
Much to President Noynoy Aquino and company’s chagrin, the unintended winner of the impeachment trial was not him but his nemesis Senator Bongbong Marcos. Bongbong was one of only three out of 23 senator judges who voted for acquittal in the Chief Justice Corona Impeachment Trial. In a culture where people like to bandwagon with the incumbents, to the detriment of the existence of any real opposition party, Bongbong Marcos earned the respect of many for not bowing to, being bullied, or being bought by the intense pressure of pork and perks reportedly applied by the President on the Senator Judges. Noynoy’s increasing megalomania may have given Bongbong the viability as a credible contender in the coming presidential elections that he otherwise may not have had.
There were many Senator Judges who are being looked at as presidential timbers: namely, Jinggoy Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gringo Honasan, Bong Revilla and many others. Had those voted to acquit, then Bongbong would have been just one of many and not stood out. Moreover, the other two Senator Judges who acquitted Corona, Joker Arroyo and Miriam Santiago, are in the twilight years of their careers. Had they been in their prime, then they would have been contenders along with Bongbong. As fate would have it, Bongbong Marcos looked every bit the independent, principled, strong and competent leader people had been hankering for.
Overnight he became the hero of the rule of law and checks and balances which is the battle cry of pro-Corona forces. He also became a figure of refuge for the many victims of the President’s political witch hunts and galvanized the fractured opposition party into a frenzy of excitement with the possibility of unity under this man. Undetected by a heavily biased media, Bongbong’s leap in popularity is indicative of the true sentiment of Filipinos about the verdict. It is commonly reported by local media that “the people” wanted to convict an unpopular Corona. Of course this is reported by media and survey firms owned by relatives and cronies of the President and party in power. The shoe is most definitely on the other foot as the son of the “hero,” is now reviled as a dictator, and the son of a “reviled dictator” now hailed as a hero.
This entry was posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:36 am and is filed under Opinion, San Francisco, View from the Ivory Tower. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
andrew lim says
May we know the personalities behing this “View from the Ivory Tower” ?
Any Marcos loyalists in San Francisco? Perhaps Boying Pimentel can shed light on this.
andrew lim says
Did a quick research on this, and I dont think it’s something to be too concerned about at the moment. My view is it’s a fringe lunatic group, in the same category as the gang at Get Real Phils.
A group of self-loathers and self-bashers whose only commonality is sarcasm, cynicism and hatred. Perhaps trying to gain fame by espousing a radical view. No clear direction though, on where the group intends to go.
It’s a good idea, though to keep tabs on them. Might need decisive action in the future.
concerned citizen says
The full text of the article by Teddy boy Locsin landed today on my FB:
http://www.geemiz.com/politics/teditorial-teddy-locsin-jr.html
baycas says
Like I said…
An impeachable offense depends on the composition of Congress (the like-minded members of each House) AND the exigencies of the time.
It is alleged by the members of the HOR by way of initiating the impeachment process. An impeachable offense always exists in the Lower House.
Final determination of it is done by the members of the Senate via the impeachment trial. An impeachable offense ceases to exist in the Upper House when its members vote an acquittal.
—–
‘Yan ang nangyari kamakailan…
20 ang nagsabing guilty si Corona sa Article 2.
It does not matter if it was Culpable violation of the Constitution AND/OR Betrayal of public trust. What is clear is that impeachable offense booted Corona out of office.
—–
Sa hindi makapaniwalang hindi impeachable offense ang nagpatanggal kay Corona sa puwesto, suportahan niyo na lang sina Adaza at Paguia sa kanilang hiling sa Korte Suprema…
Wala daw kasing jurisdiction ang Senado na dinggin ang impeachment complaint laban Kay Corona.
Baka mapa-TRO n’yo pa ang pagkakaalis kay Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado.
Dali kayo bago pa makapagligpit nang husto si Renato ng kaniyang mga gamit sa dating mesa niya.
Rochie says
basta ako, hindi ko na kailangan pang malinawan kung ano ang impeachable offense at ano ang hindi. sa lengguahe pa lang ni Corona sa tingin ko ni hindi siya dapat nakapasa sa bar. sabagay, noong panahon nila, basta kabisado mo ang batas at mga definition of legal terms, pasado ka na. unlike today, law students really do have to go through a lot of studies kasi hindi simpleng memory work ang law. aside from his language, yung ginawa nyang drama does not fit well with the office of the CJ. dapat nagpakita siya ng talino, sa salita at sa gawa, sa halip, nagpahuli pa siya sa mga statements niya. hindi ganyan ang dapat na maging CJ.
jorge bernas says
@ Rochie,
Kahit nga yong pagbenta nila nang BGEI property ay maliwanag pa sa sikat nang araw na dinaya at ginamitan nang kapangyarihan at kahit si mayor atienza ay nagpapatotoo dito, ano ngayon masasabi nang mga kakampi ni thief justice nato corona.
Maliwanag na binalasubas ni nato maging ang pamilya nito sa BGEI shares.
jjvillamor says
If we apply the quantum of proof required in a criminal law I am certain that TJ would have gotten away with it. although that should still raises issues on the impeachment or removal from office or from a position is indeed too harse a remedy for misdeclaration, or is it too harse only for Corona.
Delsa who failed to declare her market stall was not allowed to self-correct her declaration. Neither did ex-Mayor Ong of Cebu and his 2 cousins when they mis-declared for 4 years that they do not have relatives in the government. But Corona also did not declare that his wife holds a position at Camp John Hay for 7 years?
Shouldn’t the SC en-banc review these cases especially if Corona is to get his SC benefits?
Mafe says
adequate direct and circumstantial evidences were elicited, proof beyond reasonable doubt was established. but then, who has not an unprejudiced mind?
Corona does not need his “benefits”, he has more than enough stashed in the banks to last him ten lifetimes. Asking the SC to award him his benefits is strategic. If he is awarded his work benefits, he will say later on that the SC believes he was wrongfully convicted such that they had to give him what he deserves. Knowing his penchant for lip service and propaganda and (un)creative rhetoric, he will do just that.
jjvillamor says
I agree that for me, there is a layman’s proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the legal system works in mysterious ways and their proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in hard evidences which usually means written and authenticated evidences. In reality, truth often gave way to legal technicalities. Some of these as raised by the defense will be upheld by a regular court of law.
For example, the testimony of CMC and the unsigned AMLC documents may have been declared inadmissible in a regular court. Corona would then not be prompted to testify and incriminate himself.
That is just an opinion based on my personal observations of cases dismissed due to technicalities.
In my personal case, which involved a retired police (a reporter of a broadsheet tried to influence or muscle his way around), our case was dismissed because our lawyer filed for a case for malicious mischief and not destruction of property. So after 2 long years (where cases before the fiscal usually takes only 6 months) the fiscal simply ruled that it is unlikely that there was no “malicious mischief”.
We instructed the policemen to be careful, before and after he dropped a certain part of the item, but instead of exerting due care he proceeded to pull off a certain part damaging the item. This is the basis of our lawyer’s malicious mischief.
The technicality here is that an item was still damaged. So in that respect we lost although sa fiscal pa lang ito.
jjvillamor says
Some correction: I think the fiscal’s decision said (1) it was unlikely that there is malicious mischief, (2) we failed to prove or establish malicious mischief, or (3) both
Mr. Anonymous says
Yes. Might need to prepare another set of anonymous documents against them too.
Alan says
Paid for propaganda spadework. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the Philippines) the intended beneficiary of the propaganda is turning out to be a mediocre, lazy and politically tone deaf brat. I really do think all the political acumen passed to Imee not to her good for nothing brother
alpome says
Sino ba itong tinamaan-ng-lintik na nagsulat nitong “hogwash” na ito? Dinaig mo pa si Joseph Goebbels ah! Magkano ba ang binayad sa iyo, ha?
jjvillamor says
“Bongbong Marcos earned the respect of many for not bowing to, being bullied, or being bought by the intense pressure of pork and perks reportedly applied by the President on the Senator Judges.”
I hope that this is true. In a country where politicians unashamedly switch parties before elections, and form alliances with pre-election opponents for political conveniences rather than ideology, politicians fight only for what they think is to their best political and financial interest.
There is no certainty in politics and it is always clouded by personal agenda. An opposition today does not necessarily mean someone fighting for his principles. Being an opposition can get you votes too and is a good way to get some public sympathy and support.
For example, Corona: I do not regret making a stand
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/03/12/corona-i-do-not-regret-making-stand
As if he really stood and fought for something other than his own interest.
No wonder some Filipinos do not know who to vote anymore and just vote for familiar names and faces. Tutal parepareho lang naman sila so yung idol na lang nila ang magpapakayaman.
jjvillamor says
… Kaysa yung ibang tao na pati pangalan o mukha hindi nila kilala
Lumad says
may isang kwento na galing sa isa sa kanyang PR team.
Minsan na “daw” pinasara ni bongbong ang isang airport sa Ilocos sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay ng blockage sa runway nito. ginawa “daw” ito ni bong bong dahil parating ang isang foreign businessman na kaaway nya.
di ko lang alam kung totoo ito o hindi. Kung meron pang mga kwento na kagaya nito e dugtungan na lang ninyo. sa bandang huli malalaman ninyo kung totoo nga ito o hindi.
gaya na lang ng isang kwento kung papano nila gamitin ang mga foundations para sa kapakanan daw ng mga bilanggo. sa pamamagitan ng foundations na ito nairerelease ang malalaking assets nila marcos. di ko rin lang alam kung totoo man ito o hindi pakicheck na lang ninyo ang mga paper trails dun sa muntinlupa.
vander anievas says
@concerned citizen,
whoever wrote such a crap is dreaming.
what an insinuation!…no to another marcos!
what the father did to our country is irreparable.
bongbong “Won’t Bow, Be Bullied, or Be Bought”, my ass.
he’s just as moronic as brenda and jokah…all in the twilight.
ibig diyang sabihin, mas tama pa ang boto ng 3 vis-a-vis sa 20?? wtf…
“indicative of the true sentiment of Filipinos”…maybe yes, for the people who are unaware of what his father did to our nation?
oh gosh! no wonder RP will become RIP…
this thought if really shared by many a people is alarming…
WE must do something, CPMers, this is one of a challenge…
angie says
i suggest to ignore that article. it is not a broadsheet article and not from a famous blog as Raissa’s.
jjvillamor says
ANG LAKAS…
Corona to devote time to judicial independence advocacy
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/06/08/12/corona-devote-time-judicial-independence-advocacy
Dapat
Corona to devote time to independent corruption advocacy – don’t touch my loot.
jjvillamor says
Corona goes on to say:
“This, in fact, is just the beginning… The verdict is for me to step down from office. It is not for me to give up the fight for the Rule of Law, Judicial Independence, and transparency in government service… My path may have veered away significantly from where it once was, but the destination is still the same, even clearer now than it was before,”
Puro rhetorics talaga at ayaw pa tumigil. So continuous pa ang judgement ng mamamayan.
Ano kaya Rule of Law ang sinasabi niya? Delsa’s Law or Renato’s Law?
Transparency like hiding assets under a self serving (mis)interpretation of “absolute confidentiality”
Ano kaya ang “destination is still the same”? $ accounts, com-mingled funds